tv [untitled] July 10, 2011 5:00am-5:30am PDT
commissioner turman: thank you, president mazzucco. to follow up on the visitation valley community meeting, what i particularly enjoyed about it was can't mahoney's presentation on the recent activities and initiatives that have been started in his precinct and wondering if there is a mechanism in place, chief, where the captains are able to share those ideas with each other. i was particularly intrigued by his -- i can't think of the name of that program, the program that zeroed in on drivers and who were listening to -- on headphones or texting or doing illegal activity while they were actually driving. i thought it was an interesting program. he doesn't have any statistics on it yet but it's already beginning to bear some fruit in the reduction of accidents.
i thought it would be an interesting program for him to share with other captains in their particular jurisdiction. i wondered, is there a mechanism where they come together to meet and share those ideas as to how they're going to approach these very innovative law enforcement ideas. >> sure. monthly we meet, all the captains and above and we discuss things just like this. actually, i think next week, we brought back the biennial range qualifications for captains and above for many years, captains and above qualified at the same time and then had a lunch meeting discussion team building if you will, and also took care of the fact that captains and above schedules can get very busy so just make sure everybody qualifies because we do it together. so that will be next week and i can actually have the captain
mahoney driving issue as one of the subjects. >> it was a distracted driver program in particular. and to have a line item where they share those ideas and what the results have been might be helpful. >> that's part of the community policing general order that will be a best practices manual that will be a reference guide attached to it and things of this nature will be attached and that would be, for instance, in the traffic enforcement section of that community policing order. >> can i get a copy of the community policing? >> it doesn't exist yet. we're in the process of drafting the first one ever. commissioner turman: you referenced a document in which -- you referenced a document which mandated the creation of the manual. >> right. that's in progress. commissioner turman: i'd like
to see the document that references -- that mandates the creation of the manual. i understand you're building -- >> we're building the document that references the manual and the manual. >> didn't we have an audit on the community policing? we had a report on that a couple years ago, i think. >> right. so in the past whenever you audit community policing, we ask all the captains to tell us whatever they're doing and then they give it to us and we put it in a binder and someone comes and presents. this is actually going to be a general order, a department policy that this commission will actually have to approve that will go into the general order and be a standing department policy and then the best practices manual will be like we have an event management manual, we have various manuals that are then referenced by a governing general order. and that's what i'm hoping to have to this body by september 15. >> thanks, chief.
president mazzucco: any further questions? next is discussion and possible action item regarding scheduling of election of commission officers. by way of background, we usually elect our officers in late may and i was elected to president and dr. marshall to vice president back in october -- november 10, later than i thought. so commissioners, if you want to discuss when you want to have an election. commissioner dejesus? commissioner dejesus: my recollection, i may be wrong but the charter says we do elections in may, or our roles say we do elections in may. my understanding is we continue to elect a president and you declined to take the presidency for several, several months, numerous months so we had a standoff and then when we finally elected it, the question is then i remember there was discussion about the time of election and elected people but i don't recall saying we're moving the election from november to
november. there was an issue it was really only six months left or five months left or something like that. so tech anyly our rule is may. and we need to discuss it. >> the rule commissioner dejesus is referencing is part of your commission rules of procedure, your rules of order. as last revised in 2005, august 10, 2005. rule 2 -- the next one was commended a little earlier the same year. rule 2.3 has to deal with the election of officers and it does say at the last regular meeting of the commission held before the 309 day of may each year or at a prior meeting, the day of which shall be fixed annually by the commission, the members of the commission shall
elect a president and vice president of the commission, each to serve for a term beginning on the date of the first regular or special meeting held after the 30th day of may and ending one year thereof. -- there after o or the election of a new president or vice president. so even though the particular rule you have sets may as the fulcrum point for your elections, it does have an assumption at the end of the rule that from time to time you may not actually abide by that particular date frame for whatever reasons, and that's why it says, or until the election of a new president or vice president. and as of last year, there were some quorum issues and appointment and vacancy issues and things that were time delayed and not just the elections as commission seats were filled up again. these are the commission rules,
so the commission has the power to change the rules. if you want to formally amend your rule it takes 10 days notice but you're always welcome to change your rules. there's also an additional provision in the rules giving discretion to the commission president. when the rules do not address a specific situation or point of order that the president may adopt a contrary rule to address the situation on something not covered directly in the rules. that's the second paragraph of rule 2.1. so they are the commission rules, they are flexible to meet your own business needs, and that's the way they were written now as to the points just raised. >> what i hear you saying is we do have rules for election of officers at the end of may and if we don't elect someone, the president remains until we
elect an officer, but there isn't anything in there that doesn't cover the specific rules as it stands right now. >> it says or until the election of a new president or vice president, so at this point we're in july and you've not yet elected new officers then so that puts on the table how you want to do that. >> that's fine. that's exactly what i wanted to bring to our attention the rules that our election was in may and put it up for discussion because i know we were trying to elect people in may and june and july and it didn't work out for a variety of reasons and it finally spilled over to november but i don't think we ever had an agreement that it would run november to november or we'd change the rules or change the terms so we need to make that clear, i suggest that we talk about it. >> commissioners, we could schedule this matter for an election. we now have a full commission and can put it on the agenda
for when you think it's appropriate and can wait. we're in the summer months. i'll do whatever is right. it's my goal. commissioners? >> i'd like to hear from other people. >> commissioner kingsley? commissioner kingsley: i don't feel strongly about this but would urge the commission to get back on its may annual election. and i'm happy to -- personally, i'm happy to keep our present officers in place until next may, if others feel we should have a -- an election at this point, i'm fine with that, too, but would like to see when may of 2012 rolls around that we get back on to, you know, the schedule that's set by our rules, that's all. president mazzucco: commissioners? >> i feel the same way as commissioner kingsley. you know, president mazzucco
and vice president marshall have served us, in my view, very well in a very tumultuous and time over the past few months and really hit the ground running but if people think we need to have an election, and don't think there's a magic to may but before i joined the commission there were various reasons there was an election prior to that time i don't feel strongly and people want to do some in the coming weeks or wait until next may, that's fine, too. president mazzucco: commissioner chance? commissioner chance: i feel we need to get back on the schedule at some point and are busy until the end of july with disciplinary matters and if we schedule an election we could end up with the same officers we could do it in august or september. president mazzucco: commissioners, any thoughts on
september? >> i think that would be the wisest given the disciplinary matters and vacations we have. maybe we should put this on for september. president mazzucco: i'll do whatever the commission wants. commissioner turman. i didn't see your name pop up. commissioner turman: if we held the election in september it would be from september to may? >> that's the problem we'll have. we have rules saying it's in may and it got lop sided this year and i would have prefered to stay on the may schedule even if we just had the same officers, at least we had the election in may and we were on schedule. maybe we set it now, is it fair to the person elected in september to only have five months. >> i'm sorry for interrupting, i guess i didn't quite understand your last comment right there. would it be your preference just to keep the officers and wait until next may to do it or to do one before may but make it clear whoever is elected at
whatever time would serve until may? >> i would make it clear. i'd like to be on the may to may schedule and follow our own rules. for whatever reason we didn't follow it and we didn't have a discussion in november whether we'd let it run a whole year from november to november. and we're not that far off from may so i was thinking if we had an election the person now could run from may and could be the same officers. it's not an issue but if we have it in september we have the same problem and people have only five months a and i hear people saying he should run to another september. >> would you prefer august for the elections? because we're in july and set the next two weeks or so. the next two meetings. and so are you thinking the next available meeting in august? >> i don't mind if you want to do september. we just need to talk about how to do it. that person will understand we're going to do it again in may or do it from september to september, then we should change our rules? >> i'm perfectly fine -- i'm one of seven. i'm perfectly fine whenever we do the election to make it clear we're going to get back
on a may -- i don't think there's a magic to may to may but if you want to do may to may that's fine. and similarly, i don't think it's necessary we do election in september and to get back to may to may to have our current officers serve until next may and do it then and not necessary we do it in september. but again, if people want to do an election in the fall, that's explicit on saying ok, it's an election in the fall but we'll do another one in september. that's fine. my personal view is it's not necessary but i agree with commissioner dejesus that 2012 on, people, hopefully there will be a sufficient institutional memory to make sure we get back to that schedule. >> so you want to pick a date in september or -- >> commissioner turman?
: >> what are the prerequisites to holding an election? >> it would just need to be included on thea as an action item on the agenda which is usually posted on thursday or friday before your wednesday meetings the following week. >> so just a week's notice? >> the minimum would be 72 hours' notice. you're supposed to try and do a week's notice of your commission meetings approximate. >> is there an actual motion on the floor? >> no. >> no. >> it's just up for discussion. >> just up for discussion. >> any further discussion or suggestion? >> why don't we set it for second week of september and -- >> somewhere in september where we can fit it in. >> i'd just like to do it next week and get it over with. >> next week is particularly busy. >> we have a disciplinary
hearing. >> it sounds like it could take two minutes. >> you'd be surprised. >> my thought is the first wednesday in september is september 7 and the second wednesday is the 14th. >> september 7 is fine. >> how does that sound? >> so let's schedule this matter. but we'll do this underline item 3-d scheduling so september 7, how does that sound? >> ok. >> great. all right. any other items, discussion of possible action items for scheduling for the commission besides this matter? that would be 3-d. >> commission announcements and scheduling items identified for future commission meetings. >> commissioners, anything at this point? commissioner marshall? >> i'd like to ask where our next community meeting was and when? >> august 31, we're scheduling one in the prison mond district. >> we don't have one in july.
august 31. >> and i guess lieutenant falvey, i know what we have next week but it would be useful in our packets we discuss what's coming up later in the month just generally so we can have a little bit of a head's up. so i know we've got a big meeting next week. i don't know what's on the following weeks? >> we put something on last week for the 20th, the community ambassador program. >> i believe you put that in last week. >> all right. >> are there other significant disciplinary matters happening later in the month? thrs an item -- there's an item to discuss in closed session about that. but any other open session, significant open session items coming up later in the month? currently?
>> the 13th we left clear for the discipline cases and the 20th is so far just quarterly reports. and the ambassador program. that dr. marshall referenced. >> great. thanks. all right. so dr. marshall? >> i'm curious, is there a reason we didn't have a community meeting the end of july? was it because we couldn't, is there something else scheduled for the last wednesday or we couldn't get a venue or didn't pick a site? i don't know why but -- >> i may or may not be here that day. >> lieutenant falvey will be on vacation. >> all right. >> is there any public comment regarding line items 3 a, b, c or d? the commissioner report and scheduling of items?
>> commissioners, good evening. for the record, my name is emil lawrence. i have a few brief comments. first of all, i think for the public at large, and i'm not sure who is supposed to handle this, but someone should direct some of you on how to use the microphone. based on the various levels of your speech, and whether you're addressing the public at large or whether you're addressing one another on a question because it's very difficult for us to follow you on exactly what you're doing. what you're discussing. in relation to whose question. for the last 30 minutes, i listen to most of you and it's very hard for me to determine what was going on here. whether someone was answering the question, asking a question or just making gossip to one another based on some of the statistics that were read.
it's very difficult to follow. this is a public forum, a public format. you're not here to talk to one another based on some relative means but to talk to the public and let them know exactly what you're doing. i'm a member of the public and i could not understand what you were doing. and i'm sitting in the front row. it's not clear also whether if you don't have the transcriber or the encryption whether this is being recorded properly, and for the notes that are taken on regular meetings, whether those are transcripts or basically audited versions of what was stated by various members of the public, it's not clear to me that what is taking place here. you have actual audios of speeches and statements, but when you read the minutes, something else is there, sort of like a edited version of what was stated.
i don't know if that's appropriate. based on the law. based on the sunshine ordinance. it should be exactly verbatim what was stated, nothing more, nothing less, and i don't see that in any of these transcripts. i think before any meeting starts, all of you should adjust your microphones, volume level, based on your voice so the public can understand you. we don't have that at present. based on my observations, there's only one or two of you that even know how to use a microphone. i don't think that's just. i don't think that's relative to your position here on the commission. i'm just one citizen or resident of this county making my comments. but i can't make appropriate comments or questions if i can't understand what you're doing. and as of today, based on what was stated for the most part, i
did not understand it. i thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker. >> if you go to the website, you go for the agenda on the meeting, you can get a verbatim transcription of what is said on this meeting, just read it or watch the film. i'm confused with the crime report, chief. captain garrity said publicly that shoplifting was up 53%. year to date in his district. of course he handles, as you know, union square, and that's where the rings are. i'm also not sure the exact number of homicides we've had this year. i'm thinking like 30. >> i believe it's 28. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. next speaker. >> commissioner, ray hart, inspector san francisco open government. my comments are more general in the sense that the reports that
are issued and provided to you and the members of the public during this session are for both your use as a commission but also for the members of the public to know what's going on and sometimes the reports have a lot of statistics which a member of the public would have no context in which to judge them. a recent discussion of the police commission had two members advocating setting goals with the new police chief. other members, one in particular, said it would not be a good idea because it would be micromanaging the department. simply agreeing on objectives is not micromanaging. telling the chief how to achieve those objectives would be. the real reason unspoken is so members of the public will not know the criteria used to evaluate the chief's performance and more critically will not be able to decide if those criteria have been met by comparing objectives with outcomes. it not only protects the chief but also prevents the public
from evaluating whether this commission is carrying out their responsibilities to oversee the operations of the sfpd. it also protects the police commission whose performance could be evaluated as to whether their selection of the chief was a good one. nothing personal, chief. you're new and i give you a fair shot. i'll be honest with you, i think over the last 30 years, the citizens of this city have done in the electoral process a much better job dealing with the sheriff's department and the elected sheriff than this commission has done with its selection of chiefs of police. look at the drug lab problem, the admissions to the court, the officers making false statements under oath, yada, yada, yada, it goes on and on and we had a succession of police chiefs that last a year or two years and they're gone and we're starting all over from scratch. i think the elective process has served the city much better than this commission has served
in choosing the chiefs of police. now, i'm submitting a 150-word statement and you can check with lieutenant falvey on the last sotf meeting, the library commission was found in violation and sent to the ethics commission for willful violation for failing to do what the law says which is including the 150-word statement? the -- 150-word statement in the minutes. and they also indicated they'd send a letter to the attorney's office -- you can shake your head, commissioner slaughter. it may not be important to you but it is to me and important for the citizens of this city. they're going to send a letter to the city attorney and advise him to stop telling -- telling citizens of the boards of commissions that attaching statements to the minutes is the same thing as putting them in. we all know it's not and to say otherwise is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst. >> thank you. any further public comment?
hearing none, public comment is now closed. please call line item number four. >> item number four is public comment on all matters pertaining to item six below, closed session for disciplinary statement and also a vote on whether to hold item six. >> this is a closed session matter according to the copely case and the bill of rights. they're disciplinary matters and done in closed session. any public comment regarding that? commissioners, ray hart, inspector san francisco open government. too many of the police commission function are conducted in secret. it spends a significant portion if not a majority of its time in closed session. it consistently votes to not disclose discussion or outcomes of the closed sessions. the president of the commission made the rather spacious argument the public learns the outcomes when the indictments
are issued by the district attorney. the problem, indictments are seldom issued. to protect the reputation of the department, offenders are allowed to retire or resign, settling the matter outside the sight of the public. whether politics plays a part is also hidden with some officers perhaps facing charges because they're out of favor, while others commit the same offenses and are not charged. why should members of the public have confidence that the secret hearings are being conducted in a fair way and to the overall betterment of the sfpd? basically your attitude is trust us. we won't tell you what we're doing, we won't tell you the outcomes, we won't do anything except hold it in secret and you just don't do this with these matters. i said it before, you have become nothing but adjudicating body for the police department. with not have an adjudicating body and let them be separate and hear nothing and you deal with the public relationship of
the police commission to the police department and the responsibilities you have to actually oversee the department and give members of the public some information to determine whether or not you're doing that. you select the chief in private. we don't know who you select. we don't know what you ask him about, we don't know what you question about, we don't know anything. you just selected him and we're stuck with what you get. as i said before, at least when we have an elected sheriff, the elected sheriff has come up to election every so often and defend his office. there have been too many things that have been going on that are going to turn out i think like fajita-gate. i'd like to know if anyone studied how many millions of dollars this city spent dealing with fajita-gate and the outcome and the turn over in the department and all the investigations and all the lawsuits. i managed to find out that two of the officers in that case settled it out of court for $65,000 or $75,000 each.
but i have yet to learn what the city ended up paying because of that fiasco and what is it going to cost with the -- all the cases that were dismissed because of the lab result, the lab problems, the cases where the officers entered without a warrant, the cases where officers knowing that they were in the wrong actually walked up to a camera and covered it. how much more obvious do you have to be when you're doing something and one of the things you do while doing it is cover up a camera that's taking a picture of it?president mazzuccr public comment? public comment concluded. >> item 5, to vote on whether to hold up and 6 in closed session. presidentt [return 23:18]